Dog troubles not limited to one neighborhood
The "Gone to the dogs" letter in the Sept. 29 Herald-Leader painted a very unfair picture of the Cumberland Hill subdivision.
My family moved to this neighborhood 13 years ago. At that time, our sons were 2 and 7 and I must say I consider myself very blessed to have landed here.
We've made wonderful friends and the boys grew up playing basketball in the circle and football, baseball and ultimate Frisbee in the park. We have a Fourth of July parade that gives our kids a chance to decorate their bikes and trikes. We have annual Easter egg hunts and Halloween parties in the park. Plus we have breakfast with Santa in our neighborhood clubhouse.
The ordinances that were mentioned in this letter were not created by the Cumberland Hill Neighborhood Association and these occurrences are not unique to Cumberland Hill.
Our neighborhood association is not a police organization, but rather, we're just volunteers trying to offer the best atmosphere for the families who live in this neighborhood.
A neighborhood association that is voluntary like Cumberland Hill's has little to no power to enforce laws such as people walking their dogs and not cleaning up after them.
These are city ordinances and must be addressed with the proper authorities. This is extremely difficult as one must prove the occurring offense happened or such authority must witness the act in question.
I, too, am frustrated to walk into my front yard and discover a "gift" left by an uncaring pet owner.
However, to blame the neighborhood association for not taking action is not correct. I know the association has in print, in e-mails and on its Web site tried to point out this problem.
As I talk to people from many other neighborhoods in Lexington, I find this problem is not unique to any one subdivision but is a fairly frequent problem many people deal with on a daily basis.
I encourage pet owners to be more responsible with their pets. I also encourage property owners to check the facts on who can help them before blaming anyone other than the owner of the offending pet.
Rand Paul said he's not smart enough to write regulations. Based on his statements, I agree.
Many federal environmental regulations are written to allow states some latitude in developing their own regulations.
Kentucky and others have provisions in their laws which prevent state regulators from going beyond federal regulations.
This prohibition can be changed by state law, but we all know how reluctant legislators are to beef up regulations. Further, state law generally prohibits local bodies from implementing their own regulations.
Paul also said mining conditions vary by region and Kentucky should decide what measures work for its regions.
Can you imagine requiring something extra in Western Kentucky but not Eastern Kentucky?
If you vote for Paul, don't complain when we have more regulatory failures like those that have led to mine explosions, oil well explosions, gas line explosions, nursing home abuse, food poisoning and coal ash dam failures.
Praise for Pett
I have been a subscriber for many reasons, mainly because of Joel Pett. He always hits the nail on the head regarding the news events of the day.
At times, his genius has almost caused a personal injury from my laughing so hard.
We are lucky to have "Joel the Jewel" at the Herald-Leader.
Insurance for some
In addressing health care costs on his Web site, Rand Paul states: "Just as few in this country go without shoes or food, so too would few go without health care if it weren't for the government."
If elected, Paul would qualify for private health insurance that millions of other Americans would never have if it were up to him.
Upon swearing in, he, his wife and children can immediately participate in the government's health benefits program which offers taxpayer-funded, private health insurance plans from which to choose.
To demonstrate his convictions, Paul should announce that, if elected, he would refuse health insurance benefits.
With an annual U.S. Senate salary of $174,000, he could not only purchase shoes and food comfortably, but he could either pay his health and medical expenses out of pocket or find a suitable insurance plan on the open market and pay for it without taxpayer assistance.
Too much spending
Why does Ben Chandler have a disappointing record of avoiding the public and avoiding the truth?
Why is he so afraid to speak in public? Why is he still refusing to debate the issues with his opponent, Andy Barr?
Congressman Chandler voted for the failed trillion-dollar stimulus bill without reading it and has spent plenty on lies on television.
Chandler has been reckless in spending, resulting in job loss for Kentucky families.
In his refusal to give an accounting of his voting record, he shows me he doesn't respect or deserve my vote.
I'm voting for Andy Barr, the true conservative congressional candidate for Central Kentucky.
Barr's offer to debate Chandler still stands. I would still like to hear Chandler defend the policy changes he made on my behalf. It's not too late to change his mind.
Conway protects us
After the 2004 election, the Republican Party's scheme was to remove our designated Social Security funds from the secure government "lock box" and turn them over to greedy Wall Street fat cats to play with in the stock market.
If privatization and deregulation had taken place prior to the collapse of Wall Street, our hard-earned Social Security would be in serious jeopardy.
Fast forward to Rand Paul. We know he wants to privatize Social Security.
In these trying economic times, we do not need a callous politician from Texas who can only come up with a demeaning sound bite about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme.
Jack Conway will not allow our financial security to be put in jeopardy by a Republican who knows nothing about government.
Conway cares about Kentuckians and will work to protect Social Security, the middle class, the underprivileged and people with disabilities.
Karen C. Doyle